Analysis of RSPCA data 2008

[fantapants]

i think at the end of the day statistics can be used to prove anything. its more important to look at who collected the data and what they are trying to achieve with it. often the same set of statistics can be used to prove the opposite of the roiginal intention. but i seriously dislike the rspca and all of the other organisations that activley spend their funds on......getting more funds. they seem more intent on advertising for mor money than putting the money to good use.

[fixitsan]

Originally Posted by royalnking

My jump didn't come from the number of cases brought it came from the fact that their funds have increased by 66%, they have been actively trying to increase their funds by increasing their advertising. Yet they have put no extra funds into caring for the animals they have, instead they have decided to destroy 85.7% more animals inspite of animal collections being down by 18.7%.

and ok so the destuction data was based on 2005 statistics but if it was less in 2006 they would have published it so only reasonable assumption to make is that it is actually higher that this.

But that suggests to me that their is a rehoming shortage, maybe fewer people wish to rehome animals, or maybe not, but it is still quite vague

[royalnking]

Originally Posted by fixitsan

But that suggests to me that their is a rehoming shortage, maybe fewer people wish to rehome animals, or maybe not, but it is still quite vague

maybe but surely with all the funds they have generated they can build bigger caring facilities rather than destroy the animals.

[Gerry4292]

Hold on guys,i have helped the RSPCA in a few cases of animal crulety / abandonment over the last year or so,and i can tell you here now that i still have several reps from one cruelty case that are still with me after almost 7 months and they pay all the food and electric bills to look after these reps,the money has to come from somewhere.How many other people up and down the country do this,I will admit they take their time to reimburse but after all without them a lot of reps and other animals would be dead already.Yes they do have a strange way of doing things sometimes,but without them and other organisations like them how many animals would be destroyed each year.
Gerry.

[Reptilerescueden]

Originally Posted by Chris Newman

In response to the launch of the latest ‘cruelty’ statistics by the RSPCA today, here are the facts.

Between 2000 and 2006 the income of the RSPCA has risen by 66% to over £110,000,000, (one hundred and ten million pounds). There expenditure, however, has only increased by only 34%. Actions directly benefiting the welfare of animals has dropped by 32% over the same period.

RSPCA Statistics
2000 compared to 2006*

Phone calls received, Down 26.5%
Complaints investigated, Down 3.3%
Inspections, Down 95.6%
Animal collections, Down 18.7%
Homes found, Down 30.8%
Treatments, Down 18.9%
Humane destructions** Up 85.7%
Income, Up 66.1%
Expenditure, Up 34.4%
Cost of generating funds, Up 91.8%

* Due to changed in format RSPCA data can best be compared up to 2006
** 2006 data not published. 2000 compared to 2005 showed a rise of 85.7%

In terms of there prosecutions, you may like to read this article published this week:
http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/living/features/hounded/

None of this surprizes me in the slightest but the Humane Destruction figures are looking like PETA http://www.qando.net/ - PETA Kills Animals.
Seems like these big organisations methods to keep their precious funding (much raised by members of the public) to them selves rather than spend on what it ought to be spent on, like SAVING the animals lifes, are the same.

Fooking makes my blood boil. If fellow rescuers like myself can save the lives of the animal we do it, we don't euthanise them to save money etc and the majority go on to be rehomed. Plus we don't get public funding! So if we can do it then why the hell dont other large organisations do it???? Why? Because they don't give a shit!